The Wind in the Willows. By Kenneth Grahame. Year: 1908. Genre: Classic Children’s. Synopsis: Follows the adventures of ‘clever’ Mr. Toad of Toad Hall, and close friends Ratty, Mole, and Badger down by the river bank (based on London’s River Thames), and the animals and humans met along the way, such as the ‘Wayfarer’, the train driver, and the washerwoman. Wonderful book, delightfully told, a masterpiece of children’s literature.
In “The Wind in the Willows”, a children’s book that’s considered a classic and that I am presently reading, there’s the main action and we find out later what was going on in parallel to that action in a conversational scene. The author chose to tell what happened in parallel in just one scene. I found this worked perfectly, in this case. So, the question I have, is why would an author choose one lot of action first and tell the reader what happened in parallel later on, in just one scene? I think the author must know how this choice would effect the flow of the story. It may flow better that way. By telling two stories at once in parallel may lesson the effectiveness of the story as a whole. You may lose the gist of the story. Parallel plot lines — where two stories are told in parallel at virtually the same time — are the exception and one uses it only for the purposes of telling the story more effectively, without losing the gist of the story.
I’ve been using printed books for quite a while and I loved them until I discovered the joys of digital books. Without sounding too ad-ish, it occurred to me as I was reading a digital book how slim-lined they are for the purposes of reading. I don’t have to flick through a printed book and try to humbly ignore those annoying little moments when turning a page feels sort-of uncomfortable because of the tight binding of the spine. The pages are slimmer than a books and easier to go from page to page, just press the arrow key. I can even imagine myself reading digital books with illustrations and photos instead of buying coffee table books. And they are cheaper and all one has to do is sit comfortably behind a laptop without being troubled by the fear you’ll spill your drink on the book by having a book in one hand and a mug in the other. Just ever so slightly push the mug away from the keyboard! Yes, I will still go back to normal books, but I’m beginning to like the idea of digital books.
Does one’s ideas have commercial or independent potential? One’s archive of ideas may suggest one is heading in a commercial or independent direction, and an idea that has fully bloomed may suggest one way or other. Though it is not always the writer’s will that is paramount on deciding if he will be a commercial or independent screenwriter as screenwriters are at the mercy of the demands of their own country’s parochial industry, be that independent.
There’s always in the back of the mind of a writer of shorter material the time when he’ll be an author and gets the book contract. But does one really want to do that? The book signings, the author meet and greets, the interviews…the general busyness over your book? And does one really like reading books anyhow, the longer stuff that is? Can a writer be satisfied with the niche he already has and make the most of it, as much as possible? And not put all his eggs in the writing basket?